1 2025:CGHC:57444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13318 of 2025 • Rupesh Kumar Anant S/o Shiv Narayan Anant Aged About 37 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher L.B. At Govt. Primary School Kurda (Champa), Block - Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Directorate Of School Education, Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Collector District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. District Education Officer District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7. Block Education Officer Block - Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 8. Block Education Officer Block - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State. : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional Advocate General (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 26/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition (S) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 4-6-2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the District Education Officer and Secretary, District 2 Rationalization Committee, Janjgir Champa by which the petitioner has been transferred, he has also assailed the order dated 10-7-2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by the District Education Officer, Janjgir Champa by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Education Officer and also assailed the order dated 15-9-2025 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Join Director, Education Division, Bilaspur by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that some of the teachers who are also declared surplus and juniors to the petitioners have not been given any place of posting. as quota of surplus teachers has already been filled up. He would further submit that the counseling process has been completed without following the procedure prescribed in the rationalization policy. Thus, the impugned order is bad-in-law. He would further submit that the posting orders have been issued in a very haphazard manner without even calling for the claims and objections. He would further submit that as the rationalization policy, the surplus teachers would be given opportunity top make selection with respect to place of posting and senior teachers are required to be given priority and all the schools with less teachers have not been identified. He would further submit that the act of respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and unfair, unreasonable and against the rationalization policy. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submission would submit that though all 453 teachers in primary schools run by the State Education Department in the District Janjgir Champa have been declared surplus, but when the actual assessment with regard to place of posting was done, number of teachers who are required for posting is less, therefore, the person who is senior has been posted as surplus teacher as per requirement and exigency of the State. Thus, he would submit that the petitioner cannot claim parity at par with the other teachers who have been declared surplus 3 but they have not been posted at new place. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the Stat of Chhattisgarh has issued rationalization policy to see that at least one teacher and Head Master should be posted in the school depending upon number of students for imparting education. The State while analyzing the implementation of the scheme has recorded its finding that 453 teachers have been posted but when the actual assessment was done with regard to place of posting, it was found that excess teachers have been declared to be surplus which cannot be found faulty as unless and until the vacancies are available, the teachers cannot be posted, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is subjected to discrimination and some mechanism has to be developed by the State for posting of the teachers for betterment of the students. Even otherwise, the petitioner is posted at present place of posting in the year 2019 and more than six years have already lapsed, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is subjected to discrimination. 6. Considering the issue from all angels and also considering the fact that the transfer is an exigency of service, no case is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.11.27 19:00:13 +0530 4